Post navigation

Divine Blindness: Day 2

Being blind seems to be remarkably similar to having sight. I’m beginning to think that perhaps nothing is happening at all.

Then I remember that Father’s Day was yesterday. I can’t expect so much out of God. I mean, like any good dad He was probably partying into the early hours with His son Jesus, going all Old Testament on a keg of prodigious size. The resulting hangover will surely take a day or two to overcome.

Meanwhile I sit and wait for the proof that he even exists. Surely blinding an 18-year-old girl shouldn’t be too hard for him? Once He can get up off the couch without puking up a universe or two, I’m sure he’ll get right to it. Cesar’s request is probably not far down the queue, right?

Knowing Phil’s theology and that he doesn’t believe in faith healers-I’m not sure why he would say it…anyway glad you are not blind(literal) however you might have some blind spots(metaphor) like we all do.

On the subject of use of metaphor…there is a great book called How to Read a Book by Adler. I commend it to you all.

Cesar is what I understood his name to be (his accent was very thick, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he said). I don’t know what his connection to Phil is (this being the first time I’ve seen the two of them together) nor do I think he is a “faith healer”, since he was intent on blinding me and not healing me.

I am quite familiar with the use of metaphor, and I could get as metaphorical as you’d like about what he could possibly have meant by “blinding” me. However, I have sensed no difference at all, whether in physical sight or in “blindness” of my soul or intellect or whatever. The point is, there’s no change at all. He said it would begin the day after he said it, and I have detected nothing. I’m assuming if it had come to pass, it would have ceased by now, and neither have I noticed any difference between how I feel now and how I felt for the past few days.

The impression I got from Cesar was that my heart would be turned towards God once my blindness had stopped. If somehow this escaped my detection, you’d think I’d still be suffering the aftereffects (i.e., becoming a Christling). Again, this hasn’t happened.

I see it as a silly experiment with no logical basis and no negative effects on me.

George, I hate to RTFA thee, but Cesar is the person who threatened Gadfly with blindness; he is referenced in all of the articles on the subject. Phil is simply a bystander in all this.

All this talk about the difference between literal and metaphorical blindness seems to be a giant red herring. Especially because what Cesar appears to have threatened involved, “‘I can make you blind,’ he said, looking at me. ‘For a little while, you will be blind.’ … [H]e told me that the blindness would start some time the next day.” (See the first article.) Using that to segue into metaphorical blindness and blind-spots sounds a lot like pandering at this point.

oh definitely my fault-i misunderstood that cesar is the one who threatened you there-basing it off the context of phil-which is generally how you judge what is literal and what is metaphor-as we all know

-this cesar character is speaking out of his butt-since the closing of the canon there are no faith healers or faith blinders-if there were the hospitals would be empty

anyway as i said before i do think you are metaphorically blinded to the value of the gospel
but that can be easily remedied

anyway i still encourage you to check out the link-some Christians actually care about hermeneutics

The value of the gospel is the same as any other religious text. One can get good morals and stories from it by reducing much of it to metaphor, folklore, and mythos. However by doing so it lose much of poignant punch that fundamentalist use and adhere to. The gospel as any modern day interpretation taken by the vast majority of fundamentalist is boarding on useless in the modern world and has the potential to actually lead to a deprecation in the societies intellectual and correspondingly financial and military prowess. Adhering to a fundamentalist doctrine require one reject scientific principles, the very premise of fundamentalism requires it. After all if the bible is to be en errant all conflicting information must wrong and ignored or distorted to fit. That is in the exact opposite spirit of scientific pursuit.

The fundamentalist dogma requires a blind adherence to a book. There is no moment for dissidence or argument. Any individual or piece of work which contradicts the preheld conceptions must destroyed or discredited by any means necessary, whether legitimate, legal or completely not*. The whole nature of fundamentalism is complete and utter mental blindness. The worth of the gospels as taken by any modern fundamentalist Christan renders it utterly worthless, and can easily push people to moral bankruptcy.

I’m sorry if you find worth in it, but even a dirty rag has value to some.

* I have seen this with my own eyes, and had done to me as well as my peers.

How easy it is to claim that those who have opposing views to your own simply have been blinded to the truth by some magical force. As such, they are condemned to eternal anguish because they see no evidence to believe in some magical sky daddy and his earthly protege who is also himself. As they have failed to appease said being’s petty ego, they do not get a free pass and the ability to ignore all his commandments that the believers do because of the eternal cosmic scapegoat (Jesus).

Your so-called gospel holds no absolutely no credibility on top of being completely inane and just plain silly.

Yes George, I know quite well what the gospel, and how it is irrevocably linked with the narratives them selfs. As such my points above are still quite valid, and your statements so eloquently point out the correctness of my statements.

Now your entire argument (and yes it is your argument as you are using and fully believe it) that we are blind to your Christ is without evidence and merit. The world truly examined without any preconceived notions of the supernatural shows no evidence for any deity what so ever. I’m sorry, but after careful study with in my field I’m now more certain then ever that there is no signature of intelligence with in the fundamentals of nature. You call us blind, yet you have nothing to show. Like I said, fundamentalism breeds ignorance, because you must ignore, discredit, or destroy by any means any anything which stands in contradiction to your dogma.

The word gospel is an old English translation of an earlier Greek word which has the same meaning of “good news”.

The gospels as they relate to the Christan religion could reference any of the original narratives thought to be written around the initial formation of the Christian cult. Of the many that where written only four, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John where accepted into the Christan bible. Each gospel illustrate a different facets of the Christan culture, and all focus on the character commonly referred to as Jesus, though they don’t always illustrate the same events and some have conflicting views of the same event (to me this suggest that the historical accuracy of the gospel wasn’t considered a high priority to the first Christan). Of these four gospels Mark is though to have appeared first while Matthew and Luke where though to be written majority from writings Mark (likely due to people writing what they where told by others). The gospel of John is date fairly late, about mid 2nd century.

The central theme of the four ‘primary’ gospels is the need for salvation and atonement through the sacrifice of Jesus. This is the usual hook (though not the actual meaning) that Christians use when referencing the gospel and is what I think you’re insinuating. However it is still irrevocably linked with the actual narratives them self, unless you are willing to consider them as non historical and as allegory for this preposition.

The gospel
critiques both religion and irreligion (Matt.21:31; 22:10).

On the one hand,
“moralism/religion” stresses truth without grace, for it says that we must obey the
truth in order to be saved.

On the other hand, “relativists/irreligion” stresses grace
without truth, for they say that we are all accepted by God (if there is a God) and we
have to decide what is true for us.

But “truth” without grace is not really truth, and
“grace” without truth is not really grace. Jesus was “full of grace and truth”. Any
religion or philosophy of life that de-emphasizes or lose one or the other of these
truths, falls into legalism or into license and either way, the joy and power and
“release” of the gospel is stolen by one thief or the other.

“I am more sinful and flawed than I ever dared believe” (vs. antinomianism)

“I am more accepted and loved than I ever dared hope” (vs. legalism)

A. The Gospel and the individual.
1. Approach to discouragement. When a person is depressed, the moralist says, “you
are breaking the rules–repent.” On the other hand, the relativist says, “you just need
to love and accept yourself”. But (assuming there is no physiological base of the
depression!) the gospel leads us to examine ourselves and say: “something in my life
has become more important than God, a pseudo-savior, a form of worksrighteousness”.
The gospel leads us to repentance, but not to merely setting our will
against superficialities. It is without the gospel that superficialities will be addressed
instead of the heart. The moralist will work on behavior and the relativist will work on
the emotions themselves.

2. Approach to the physical world. Some moralists are indifferent to the physical
world–they see it as “unimportant”, while many others are downright afraid of
physical pleasure. Since they are seeking to earn their salvation, they prefer to focus
on sins of the physical like sex and the other appetites. These are easier to avoid than
sins of the spirit like pride. Therefore, they prefer to see sins of the body as worse than
other kinds. As a result, legalism usually leads to a distaste of pleasure. On the other
hand, the relativist is often a hedonist, someone who is controlled by pleasure, and
who makes it an idol. The gospel leads us to see that God has invented both body and
soul and so will redeem both body and soul, though under sin both body and soul are
broken. Thus the gospel leads us to enjoy the physical (and to fight against physical
brokenness, such as sickness and poverty), yet to be moderate in our use of material
things.

3. Approach to love and relationships. Moralism often makes relationships into a
“blame-game”. This is because a moralist is traumatized by criticism that is too severe,
and maintains a self-image as a good person by blaming others. On the other hand,
moralism can use the procuring of love as the way to “earn our salvation” and
convince ourselves we are worthy persons. That often creates what is called “codependency”–
a form of self-salvation through needing people or needing people to
need you (i.e. saving yourself by saving others). On the other hand, much
relativism/liberalism reduces love to a negotiated partnership for mutual benefit. You
only relate as long as it is not costing you anything. So the choice (without the gospel)
is to selfishly use others or to selfishly let yourself be used by others. But the gospel
leads us to do neither. We do sacrifice and commit, but not out of a need to convince
ourselves or others we are acceptable. So we can love the person enough to confront,
yet stay with the person when it does not benefit us.

4. Approach to suffering. Moralism takes the “Job’s friends” approach, laying guilt on
yourself. You simply assume: “I must be bad to be suffering”. Under the guilt, though,
there is always anger toward God. Why? Because moralists believe that God owes
them. The whole point of moralism is to put God in one’s debt. Because you have been
so moral, you feel you don’t really deserve suffering. So moralism tears you up, for at
one level you think, “what did I do to deserve this?” but on another level you think, “I
probably did everything to deserve this!” So, if the moralist suffers, he or she must
either feel mad at God (because I have been performing well) or mad at self (because I
have not been performing well) or both. On the other hand, relativism/pragmatism
feels justified in avoiding suffering at all costs–lying, cheating, and broken promises
are OK. But when suffering does come, the pragmatist also lays the fault at God’s
doorstep, claiming that he must be either unjust or impotent. But the cross shows us
that God redeemed us through suffering. That he suffered not that we might not
suffer, but that in our suffering we could become like him. Since both the moralist and
the pragmatist ignore the cross in different ways, they will both be confused and
devastated by suffering.

5. Approach to sexuality. The secularist/pragmatist sees sex as merely biological and
physical appetite. The moralist tends to see sex as dirty or at least a dangerous
impulse that leads constantly to sin. But the gospel shows us that sexuality is to
reflect the self-giving of Christ. He gave himself completely without conditions. So we
are not to seek intimacy but hold back control of our lives. If we give ourselves
sexually we are to give ourselves legally, socially, personally–utterly.

Ugh, now where to start. First off this doesn’t even contradict what I’ve said, and if anything it further implies it! This an interpretation on the gospels them selfs and their message it not what the gospel is. I question whether you even know what the actual definition of the word gospel is, as my initial definition and explanation where quite correct. You may try to pass this off as being the gospel in a roundabout form of equivocation; However you would be acting facetiously by doing so. I think You’ve gotten confused over the underlying message and the actual text.

Additionally the whole of this text is filled with strawmen, redherrings and misconceptions. I don’t think that who ever wrote this actually knew what they where talking about.

look endgame im sorry if ive been less than civil
i’m doing my best here-my claim is you are blind to the value of the gospel-you say what? that the gospel has subjective value to the devotees of it?

you are right this is an unpacking of the implications of the gospel-the God-spell or “Good News or Evangelion is believing in all that God is for us in Christ
will result in
being more accepted and loved than I ever dared hope

this is possible by God dying for us this is recorded for us in the 4 Gospel accounts

Yes, yes, a scapegoat is substituted for us in God’s wrath and we’re saved thereby. Blood sacrifice and all that barely-civilized yummy goodness.

Even if a deity could be proven to exist and that deity somehow turned out to be the God of the Bible, it still wouldn’t make that sacrifice right. If we have indeed “sinned”, no one can absolve that sin but the people who perpetrated the sins. Having someone die on their behalf is a meaningless gesture, and one immoral in principle. No one can die for another and absolve the person they died for of their crime (or sin).

There is no “good news” in the Gospel, only a message that we should revert to an Iron Age mentality in which blood spilled always means something good.

I never said you weren’t being civil. Aside from the copy-pasta, which is more of an Internet social fax paus then anything else. However I still claim the value of the gospel is close to nothing, saving for it’s cultural historical significance (i.e. understanding the culture of long dead societies).

Now, given what I’ve seen from the multitude of Christians, all of whom have different interpretations of the scripture, leads me to conclude that it is highly subjective. I mean how many different sects are there just in the modern world, never mind in the past 2000 years? Each is different (Sometimes and in fact more often then not extremely so) and they each have different methods towards salvation. Some believe all will be saved regardless of their religious convictions, some believe that only through complete devotion and rejection of the physical world will you be saved. Some believe in a completely literal and en errant bible, other’s believe it’s highly metaphorical and is almost completely human in nature. This is a major problem with your gospel as it dose seem to be highly subjective.

I also say it’s fundamentally worthless, as it has no value in the modern day and can be more of a hindrance to progress then anything else. The gospel isn’t able to back itself up, and offers nothing truly empirical beyond what any other religion dose i.e. piece of mind and comfort, and I can find both of these with out the religious overtones and extra baggage.

You see it’s not the piece of mind that I have an issue with (if that’s all people got out of it and used I’d be fine with it, like universalism for example), it’s the rest of it, all the baggage, and there’s a lot. You see to believe in the gospel requires that you also believe in the narratives to some degree, and usually the more fervently you believe the more literal you end up taking the narratives. This leads to major issues as the world itself doesn’t support them any more then it dose the Iliad. So you have to begin making excuses as to why this is, which many times results in distorting the facts and evidence with in this world to fit. It creates false impressions and conclusions which can be extremely decremental and out right deadly. Two examples come right to mind, demonic spirits and possession, as well as faith healing.

I’ve talked with a great many devote Christians and many take the concept of demons very seriously, Things like being stalked by demons or demonic possession (I’ve seen quite a few people claim things like this before). Most people (I would hope at lest) know that these things don’t exist, however not all do. So what we end up having is people with usually a mild case of Schizophrenia reinforced till it becomes a more major and dangerous case of psycho Schizophrenia. Yes it dose happen, quite often. Once people begin to believe in the “unseen” they have no reason to doubt any illusions or hallucination. The problems of this should be obvious, the danger it poses to individuals along with society are quite significant.

Faith healing are also a major issue of contention that ends up arising from a belief in the gospel. There are many bible passages which claim people can and will be held through faith and devotion, such as James 5:14-15, Matt 21:22, Matthew 7:7-11 among others. Now I’m going to be blunt faith dose not heal people physically, there are many studies and research attempts that back this statement up, and I have found no legitimate study which contradicts it. So since faith it self can’t heal the only thing we have is medicine and medical treatments, however people who believe in faith healing tend to ignore modern medical treatments or use them as a last resort. Again this is something that I’ve seen quite often, and is backed up by numerous accounts.

Both of these come from your scripture which must be believed if you are to believe the gospel. Now you personally my interpret these parts of the bible differently and come to different conclusions, yet the point still remains that many by your assertions do not believe in your biblical views. So why are they wrong but your right?

Fucking atheist cunt! No but serriously fuckyou! George came here to give you the message of the gosple and you reject it. What the fuck is your problem, hun? You little shit. What gives you the right to critises me and George’s faith and belife? Man your so luck I don’t know where you live, other wise I’d come over there and beat the gospel into your little fucking head. What are you any way, some little reblious teenager? “Oh I hate my mommy and daddy they make me go to church., I don’t like church I like being reblious.” Grow the fuck up. One day you’ll wise up and beg forgiveness. You know what get the fuck off the internet till your actually in college. fucking kids.

As for your misinterpretation of my meaning, isn’t it just like a Christian to miss no opportunity to express just how “unworthy” you are? Constant self-abasement to the point of arrogance must get so exhausting…

One could only hope that thou art a troll. I honestly could not imagine someone with a post such as yours being serious, or believing that they will be taken seriously. I can hardly take someone who so quickly reverts to anger and open threats even slightly serious. For if you honestly believed the same philosophies that many of our more friendly Christian foes (I use the word ‘foes’ in the friendliest of terms, I assure you), you would never use such harsh demeanor.

Yes, all of us, mostly college educated atheists are a bunch of angry teenagers. We know the stereotype. I really wish my mommy and daddy hadn’t loved me so much. Whatever shall I do?

How about instead, you grow up from your Iron Age mythology?

Welcome to the world, good sir. I’m sure you know about free speech (unless you follow the bible that says women don’t have that right). Additionally, welcome to OUR website. I will do you the favor of reminding you that you are on OUR territory. If you would like to be civil, be our guest. If you would like to attempt to cause trouble and troll, then be gone pest.

This is just what I mean. Since when is the world your territory? I wasn’t just talking about what you say and do on this pathetic website, but what you do out side. You have no right to belittle us! We believe in God you don’t, and if I understand the first amendment that gives us all the right to preach and speak of our God. The first amendment dose not give you the right to mock our God.

I am one of many, and we will fight for our kingdom! Be warned atheist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It sounds so funny when you say what Matt has written in a thick southern, redneck drawl. It makes sense now. Matt, why don’t you go back to your trailer, drink a beer, and fuck your sister. It’s what you are best at, because grammar and spelling are defiantly not your strong points.

We have all the right in the world to belittle you. It really isn’t even about belittling you though. It is about making sound and logical arguments to support our position, which you have shown you are incapable of. The arguments for your cause are shoddy at best. Most of the time they are asinine, intellectually dishonest falsehoods.

The first amendment guarantees our right to criticize any position we so choose.

Congratulations on being accidentally correct, Matt. The first amendment in fact does not give us the right to belittle thy religion—it guarantees our right to belittle thy religion, protecting that right from interference by the government. Gadfly, Kyle, EndgameOmega, thou, and every other person has the right to criticize and belittle any idea, including religion.

The first amendment doesn’t give us this right: we already have it to begin with.

“The gospel of Jesus is not religion or irreligion, morality or immorality, moralism or relativism, conservatism or liberalism. Nor is it something halfway along a spectrum between two poles–it is something else altogether…In its view, everyone is wrong, everyone is loved, and everyone is called to recognize this and change.” -Timothy Keller

Brother Matt. If brother you be, and believe the Scriptures are the words of your Lord, then take note:

“Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” – I Peter 3:15-16

“You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.” – Colossians 3:7-8

“But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’” – Jude 1:9

Why do you say that you are one of many as if that should matter? We do not boast in numbers but rather in the Lord. Why do you profess that you wish to beat the gospel into his head? What kind of war do you think we are fighting? “For though we live in this world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” (II Corinthians 10:3-6) Listen to the words of your Lord before the earthly governor: “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” (John 18:36)

Finally, I say that you yourself should be warned, brother. “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matthew 6:14-15)

Isaac? Are you hiding behind the persona of EndGameOmega? EndGameOmega, if you are not Isaac, could you please tell Isaac that Joel would like to speak with him at greater length concerning vacuum energy fluctuations? I am curious as to how one would go about resolving the issue of antiparticles annihilating ordinary matter within an inflationary model of the universe. He can reach me at joel.swanstrom@asu.edu.

Wow, this Keller guy sure dose like to play lose with definitions. “In its view, everyone is wrong, everyone is loved, and everyone is called to recognize this and change.”; This statement alone shows quite coherently that your gospel is in fact a religion. It the exact same typography that religions, and more specifically cults use to argue that they alone have the truth and that there truth is special. You must surrender your self completely to the idea or else the idea dies. Your gospel itself is based on the narratives and with it other mythological documents and commandments. You can call a rose what ever you want, it properties, it’s smell will always be the same, and your gospel is the dogma for a religion.

Regardless of personal opinion, your gospel is religion, or rather is the basis for a religion. One could not define it as moralism since moralism is a pretty agnostic philosophy. While some may choose to view the gospel as relativistic, it is actually rather straight forward and static. Reality simply does not operate based upon personal opinion of it. One could associate it with conservatism as the gospel is unchanging and does not really allow for changes (this is strictly arguing on the underlying principle, not getting into the morals, which would increase its association with conservatism).

Back to the whole ‘religion’ term. I find use of this word curiously funny when debating with those of faith, particularly Christians, more specifically of the evangelical variety. It seems much of the evangelical population has a rather interesting definition of the word ‘religion’. When calling their beliefs religion, they are quick to oppose the claim, yet I often hear claims that atheism is a religion by the very same people. There are somewhere around a hundred plus definitions of religion, but the most common aspect of the many definitions is an acknowledgment of supernatural or a higher power, especially in relation to the origin of the universe. This of course would be through faith. It also references the doctrines that come along with belief in said being/power. As such, the gospel is religion, or rather establishes one (or many), and atheism, which is a lack of belief in a god, is not by the a great majority of definitions.

I have no problem with people being loved, but as Nietzsche said, “There is not enough love and goodness in the world to permit giving any of it away to imaginary beings.”

Tim Keller, i thought i recognized that name. Author of The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism and in my opinion, a downright atrocious arguer not due to format, but due to an inability – or at least that is how it seems – to understand that the points raised are easily refuted and have already been.

In his book he makes a distinction between skeptics and believers instead of the typical label of non-believers because we all believe in something. To quote the thesis – “If you come to recognize the beliefs on which your doubts about Christianity are based, and if you seek as much proof for those beliefs as you seek from Christians for theirs—you will discover that your doubts are not so solid as they first appeared.”

Multiple times, during the reading a perusing i did of this book before reselling it to get the filth off out of my bookshelf, there are blatant equivocations and logically unsound and false statements. The thesis itself is one if you think about it. The basics of the statement is A&B leads to C. However these are not like if you add HBr and Ca you get CaBr2 and H2(gas). A and B here are subjective quantifiers. A is subjective to you will need to get rid of all your beliefs that cause you to doubt Christianity and B is subjective to how much proof you require. These both allow for the simple, you just haven’t looked hard enough, or you just need to read more rebuttal from current Christians as to why you are not or why you refute their position.

Also, speaking from personal research, I have found that the data presented does not hold water under the standards I require from other atheists and scientists. The evidence here is flimsy and circular. Most of these arguments are similar as well, also in style, to those of C. S. Lewis and parts of Mere Christianity.

Again, please stop using copypasta from books that you have yet to research the actual documents on or at least thought on the theology. It seems like I’m hearing much of the same statements that I have refuted many times – along with many here – with simple logical argument.

One last point, the gospels are NOT the message, the message is contained within the gospels, letters, previous text – the Tanakh, and partially from prior traditions from the cultural area. Please do not redefine terms to suit your equivocations. It is intellectually dishonest and underhanded.

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I see that that quote is from ‘The Prodigal God’. I do believe that Joe was simply using that book as a reference to call into question the credibility of the author’s overall claims/arguments, rather than directly responding to the quote which you provided.

Of course what you take from things is subjective because it is influenced by your own personal perception, preconceptions, etc. The point is you cannot accurately make a blanket statement that message of something is this or that, because what you deem is the underlying message of something, the next person may not agree with.

This is not to say that things cannot be objective, only that what you take out of it will not be. You can objectively say that the bible says a certain thing in a literal sense by showing the passage (ignoring arguments over translation differences). Once you start interpreting, you lose all claims to objectivity in the argument as it is no longer falsifiable and is a matter of perception, not fact.